The fundamental duty of a parent to provide opportunities for education to their child, as per Article 51-A(k) of the Constitution of India, 1950, is a significant factor in custody disputes and can influence the court's decision.

The Petitioner, who is the father of the minor child, viz., H. Syed Sahfique Ahmed born on 05.03.2011, has filed this Petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking for appointing him as the guardian of the person of the minor and for permanent custody of that child, who is now in the custody of the Respondent/Mother. In pursuance of the orders dated 03.04.2018 and 12.04.2018, the Petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 11.06.2018 stating that he had divorced the Respondent on 10.01.2012 by triple talaq and the Chief Haji had given a letter validating the talaq and he married another women in the middle of the year 2012 and through her he was having three female children.

2. The Respondent in the counter affidavit dated 11.09.2018 has contended, inter alia, that there have been earlier orders of the Courts in other proceedings between the parties directing the Petitioner to pay her maintenance, which has not been promptly complied, and that the school fees of the minor child that was incurred by the Respondent has not been reimbursed by the Petitioner.

3. In reply to the claim made by the Respondent for reimbursement of the school fees incurred by her, the Petitioner has filed reply affidavit dated 03.10.2018 stating that there is no Court order requiring him to reimburse the school fees of the minor child said to have been incurred by the Respondent.

4. A Memo of Calculation dated 11.09.2018 along with supporting receipts for school fees aggregating to Rs.2,79,000/- paid by the Respondent from May 2014 to May 2018 has been filed by the Respondent. Though the copy of the said Memo of Calculation with the enclosures has been received by the Counsel for the Petitioner, no objection has been raised regarding the genuineness of the same till date. As such, the Petitioner does not dispute the correctness of the amount of school fees claimed to have been paid by the Respondent, but only seeks to contend that he does not have any liability to pay the same on the ground that there is no order from any Court in that regard.

5. In justification of the claim that the Petitioner cannot be required to pay the school fees of the minor child, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relies on para 13 of the affidavit dated 13.05.2016 filed by the Respondent in M.C. No. 1346 of 2015 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in which it has been stated as follows:-

“13. I humbly submit that I am finding it very difficult to maintain myself and the Second Petitioner. I need a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month for my maintenance as per my standard of living and the Second Petitioner needs a sum of Rs.6,000/- for his school education, maintenance, welfare, dress, medical expenses, entertainment expenses, etc., as per our standard of living which the Respondent needs to be directed to pay to us.”

It is contended that after taking note of the same, the Additional Mahila Court, Chennai, in the order dated 19.06.2017 in C.M.P. No. 990 of 2016 in D.V.C. No. 72 of 2017 had fixed the interim maintenance payable to the Respondent at Rs.6,000/- and for the minor child at Rs.4,000/-, aggregating to Rs.10,000/- per month and in such circumstances, the Respondent cannot claim any higher amount including school fees from the Petitioner.

6. In reply to the aforesaid contention, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent had filed a complaint against the Petitioner for domestic violence and dowry harassment in M.C. No. 1346 of 2015 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, and that the Petitioner had filed Crl. O.P. No. 4550 of 2016 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before this Court to quash the same and by order dated 21.04.2016 the Petitioner was directed to pay the school fees of the minor child by 25.04.2016. After recording that the Petitioner had not complied with that direction, this Court by order dated 26.04.2016 in Crl. O.P. No. 4550 of 2016 had held t